Once upon a time a haircut meant “the act or an instance of cutting the hair.” In recent years, unbeknownst to an unsuspecting, trusting public, the slang stock exchange expression of “haircut” has become an acceptable banking practice to collectively apply to your bank accounts, according to the central bankers, world leaders and shadowy bankers like the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and the Basel Committee. Just ask people in Cyprus.

“Haircut” in stock exchange slang means: “a percentage of the value of an asset deducted to account for possible fall in its value before it can be liquidated?” Translation: we can take your money that’s in our banks before you can get it.

Now that we are all clued in to what the bankers have known and planned for years. Nobody’s bank deposits are immune from the Cyprus confiscation model “haircut” to recapitalize the bankers’ financial institutions by taking your money if the banks become insolvent, which is just a nicer word for bankrupt. As previously reported, in bankster-speak, it’s also called “socializing the losses.”

Welcome to the subculture of the money changers; where verbal shorthand, slang, represents convoluted concepts that become policy that may affect you. It’s time you understood their language.

In the introduction on page 1 of the 69-page report (PDF) we learn: “The objective of the reforms is to improve the banking sector’s ability to absorb shocks arising from financial and economic stress, whatever the source, thus reducing the risk of spillover from the financial sector to the real economy.”
Absorbing shocks is when a bank could fail and the bankers recapitalize it in order to save it. Financial and economic stress occurs when the banksters bets go bad. During the 2008 financial crisis, for instance, they recapitalized their banks under the auspices of saving the financial and monetary system by taking taxpayer money (your money) to bail them out.

On page 44, Section 108 we see how “haircuts” (taking depositor money) is part of their bag of tricks to use the next time a bank fails to recapitalize them:

108. To implement the supervisory haircuts for non-cash OTC collateral, a new paragraph 61(i) would be incorporated in Annex 4 as follows:

61(i). For a bank to recognise in its EAD [Exposure at default] calculations for OTC [over-the-counter] derivatives the effect of collateral other than cash of the same currency as the exposure itself, if it is not able to model collateral jointly with the exposure then it must use either haircuts that meet the standards of the financial collateral comprehensive method with own haircut estimates or the standard supervisory haircuts.”

On page 46-47, Section 104, Part B, at ii:

“Changes in the value of collateral need to be reflected using the supervisory haircut method or the internal estimates method, but no collateral payments are assumed during the margin period of risk (bold mine).”

Who is in charge of the “supervisory haircut method?” Naturally, it is the bankers.

On page 30, section 3.4.6. of the report, we are told: “Collateral or other equivalent financial resources can fluctuate in value, however, so the payment system should establish prudent haircuts to mitigate the resulting potential future exposure.”

From Page 46:

“Principles 5: Collateral

An FMI [financial market infrastructure] that requires collateral to manage its or its participants’ credit exposure should accept collateral with low credit, liquidity, and market risks. An FMI should also set and enforce appropriately conservative haircuts and concentration limits.

Key considerations

1. An FMI should generally limit the assets it (routinely) accepts as collateral to those with low credit, liquidity, and market risks.
2. An FMI should establish prudent valuation practices and develop haircuts that are regularly tested and take into account stressed market conditions.
3. In order to reduce the need for procyclical adjustments, an FMI should establish stable and conservative haircuts that are calibrated to include periods of stressed market conditions, to the extent practicable and prudent.
4. An FMI should avoid concentrated holdings of certain assets where this would significantly impair the ability to liquidate such assets quickly without significant adverse price effects.
5. An FMI that accepts cross-border collateral should mitigate the risks associated with its use and ensure that the collateral can be used in a timely manner.
6. An FMI should use a collateral management system that is well-designed and operationally flexible.”

In other words, financial institutions/banks should be able to move quickly to grab your cash if need be to save them. Remember how in Cyprus initially the haircut/theft was 9.9% for deposits over €100,000. That “haircut” percentage quickly soared to 60%? Does that sound conservative and prudent to you? Next time the “haircut” could be even higher. Whatever it takes to keep the bankers solvent.

When a person gambles at a casino they know they are gambling. They know they could lose their money. Now, people could lose their money by keeping it under the false pretense of keeping it safe in a bank. Banks used to be institutions that received, lent, exchanged and kept money for safekeeping but those days are gone. Now thanks to “haircuts” and “bail-ins” as being a part of the bankers bag of tricks to supposedly preserve the financial and monetary system (they created), banks are now casinos except you, the depositor, doesn’t get to play in the game. Just like casinos where the house always wins in the long run, so does the banks in the event of a failure at your expense.

Below is a partial list of banks complied from CNN and ehow money that received bailouts funded by taxpayers after the 2008 financial crisis. The U.S. taxpayer alone, to the tune of about $200 billion, bailed out hundreds of banks through its “Capital Purchase Program.” Imagine when the next financial crisis occurs (when not if) and banks receive a “haircut” or “bail-in” to stay afloat in the glorious name of preserving the financial and monetary system. Will you be next?

Well when they set up a fall to occur it just makes sense to take some off the top to cover it.

Except….. there is nothing of any value in their paper. They are seizing the labor of the people they tyrannize.

Sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors… Jesus knew the “Money Changers” for what they were. The Iranians know how to deal with corrupt bankers…. Funny how Obama was so set against Israel not so long ago and now we ar best friends after they whacked the bankers who were found committing fraud. I think we can take a lesson form them. Off with their heads. Uruguay, Mylasia both have resisted the bankers and the US fell on them with swift response. Obiously they have become the enforcers for the Banking Cartel.

If the gun treaty passes or the succeede in pasing heavyier laws in the US againstgun possession we will see a Europe Event in the US not so long afterward. The politicians just don’t want to get shot.

Notice how Obama addrressed a group of Grad students telling them to disregard the implications of tyranny by government??? That is because we have re-found our right to overthrow tyranny in the COnstitution and the Founding Documents. They know this and are afraid. Be afraid, be very afraid…..

My Content Policy. Ethics Matter

No content on this website, be it written, audio, video, photographs, or other printed matter may be used without expressed permission from Marinka Peschmann with a signed release form releasing this information.

... for supporting the work and research.

The Clintons did not murder Vince Foster, but had Bill and Hillary Clinton been held to account for other misdeeds…

Immigration: Republican & Democrat failure

9th Circuit Court Proceedings (video is 14 minutes): The Honorable Judges are 150% right. They see what the real problems are, as opposed to the lawmakers since “conservative hero” President Ronald Reagan passed amnesty.
Immigration, it only affects national security and the economy.